Laura Pressley v. Gregorio "Greg" Casar, 567 S.W.3d 28

Background

2014 Austin City Council District 4 runoff: Casar beat Pressley by 1,291 votes; 4,417 total votes (480 by mail, 3,937 on Hart eSlate DREs). A manual recount of CVRs (cast vote records) was conducted and matched the canvass.
Pressley sought recounts and administrative review, then filed an election contest alleging CVRs are not statutory “ballot images,” voter disenfranchisement, irregularities, and criminal conduct by election officials.
Travis County uses Hart eSlate DREs (paperless). The Secretary of State certified the system and treats CVRs as ballot images; CVRs were printed and observed at the recount.
Casar moved for no-evidence summary judgment and for sanctions under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10; the trial court granted summary judgment for Casar and awarded sanctions ($40,000 against Pressley, $50,000 against Rogers, plus expenses and contingent appellate fees).
On appeal, Pressley and her former attorney Rogers challenged (1) the no-evidence summary judgment, (2) discovery rulings, (3) the legal status of CVRs as ballot images, and (4) the appropriateness and procedural validity of the sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pressley)	Defendant's Argument (Casar)	Held
Whether CVRs satisfy Election Code requirement for “ballot images” for recounts	CVRs are data records, not pictorial ballot images required by statute/constitution; Hart can produce true ballot images so CVRs are insufficient	Secretary of State and EAC definitions equate CVRs with ballot images; certified eSlate storing CVRs complies with Election Code; Texas precedent upholds certification	Court held CVRs qualify as ballot images under agency definitions and certification; no violation shown
Whether Pressley produced > scintilla to create fact issue that illegal votes counted or legal votes uncounted (no-evidence SJ)	Alleged multiple irregularities (invalid/corrupt MBBs, broken seals, open tally computer, missing tapes, statistical anomalies, prevented poll-watcher access) demonstrate material effect on outcome	Recount matched canvass; evidence of error messages, seal changes, or logs was speculative and did not show any votes were miscounted or excluded	No-evidence SJ affirmed: Pressley produced only speculation; no clear-and-convincing proof that outcome was materially affected
Discovery and procedural complaints (Travis County proprietary materials; trial court review of evidence)	County improperly withheld eSlate manual and proprietary info; court failed to review evidence before SJ	Parties failed to follow nonparty discovery rules; appellant waived objections by not securing rulings or continuance; court reviewed cited evidence sufficiently	Discovery complaints not preserved or waived; no reversible error in court’s handling or review of evidence
Sanctions under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10 (appropriateness, plenary power, amounts, appellate fees)	Sanctions were procedurally invalid/plenary power expired; excessive and targeted Rogers despite lead-counsel changes; appellate fees improper	Pleadings lacked factual or legal support after discovery; Rogers signed pleadings; trial extended interlocutory order to consider sanctions; Low factors support sanction amounts and contingent appellate fees are authorized	Sanctions affirmed: trial court had authority, proper application of Chapter 10 and Low factors, direct nexus to offenders, amounts not excessive, contingent appellate fees permissible

Key Cases Cited

Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) (upheld Secretary of State’s certification of Hart eSlate and recognized limits of DREs)
Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (standards for reviewing sanctions awards for abuse of discretion)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (chapter 10 sanctions standard and Low factors for assessing monetary sanctions)
Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (no‑evidence summary judgment standards)